Posts by Intractable Potsherd

Re: "never ever broken a rule, even one totally unrelated to their profession"

@Squander Two:

"Contrary to what a lot of people commenting here think, it's not medical knowledge that's the clincher. A doctor who doesn't understand what's wrong with you can still be brilliant if they acknowledge that they don't know and so defer to another doctor. The big problem you run into with doctors -- the problem that can kill you all too quickly -- is arrogance."

It isn't just doctors - anyone you deal with that is confident enough to say "I don't know, but I do know how to find out" is worth their weight in gold, whether it is your local shopkeeper or a professional. The problem is, as I was once seriously asked by a surgeon, "If I'm going to be cutting you open and rummaging about in your insides, do you want me to come into the room with confidence bordering on arrogance or do you want me to tell you all the times I've had things go awry?" The point is, most of us want the people with our lives in their hands to appear more godlike than human. However, a little humility helps to temper that - the surgeon that failed to act appropriately to save my father's life was retired early as a result of our complaint about his offhand manner when we praised the care but asked why he wasn't transferred to the local centre of excellence. Had he said "I made a mistake" he wouldn't have triggered he investigation that showed he had not followed best practice in his treatment ...

"When they're not sure what's wrong with you but would never admit that, when they're sure that their years of experience mean they can just tell what's wrong with you and so they don't need no stinking tests, when they don't listen to their patients because they know better than some unqualified hypochondriac pleb, when, in short, they are convinced of their own brilliance: that's when you need to get the hell out and find another doctor, urgently. Not that you always have that option. Read the headlines: this is what a large proportion of malpractice and wrongful death cases boil down to. "My husband had brain cancer but his doctor told him to take an aspirin.""

Yes, but the medical training system leads to this. The concept of the differential diagnosis, which essentially places a premium on the most probable cause for any given symptoms, means that an atypical presentation will not necessarily lead to a correct diagnosis. The only option is to send anyone that complains of e.g. recurrent headaches immediately for a brain scan (which might not pick up the problem anyway), instead of suggesting that a trip to the optician is a good idea (which is more likely to pick up the problem).

"Speak to people who go see alternative quacks instead of doctors: they're not all just delusional; plenty of them avoid conventional medicine because they've learnt the hard way that its practitioners are not to be trusted."

We have a difference of opinion about the level of delusion of people that go to unlicenced, unregulated, and/or openly fraudulent "alternative" practitioners. The only way they might be considered to be better off is that they possibly don't risk side-effects from non-active substances. What these doctors have done is make the best available information easy to access for practitioners, thus making it less, rather than more, likely that mistakes will occur. Otherwise, people believing in "woo-medicine" are totally delusional.

"For me, this plagiarism is indicative of arrogance; of contempt for rules and a readiness to lie."

To be fair, my fairly extensive experience of doctors is that they think plagiarism is restricted to cheating in exams. Copyright means as little to them as it does to the average person that downloads music from unofficial sources. You are holding them to higher level of knowledge than they have. That the authors and publisher of the book didn't think of this shows greed and untrustworthiness that concern me far more than the actions of the people that wrote the app.

"But it does depend. 35 in a 30 zone? Who cares? 60 in a 30 zone? Yes, strike the bastard off."

No, it depends on a lot more - had he taken account of all considerations? What was the time and what were the road conditions? Why was he speeding? Was there an emergency situation? 60 in a 30 zone in a heavily built up area with children crossing the road to go to school isn't ever safe (despite the way some of the plod drive when it suits them), but it might be at 4am. Context is all.

Re: Nothing to lose a license over...

As a lawyer and medical ethicist, I'm very much on the side of those who wonder what the hell the GMC is wasting time on this for. If, and only if, they are found guilty of something in a court should this become a Fitness to Practice hearing. With all the piss-poor care that seems to be being reported, one would hope that the GMC has more than enough actual, genuine cases in which fitness to practice should be questioned.

Re: Can't even sort out their own house... @ Gordon Pryra

Clearly I'm not part of the English people, then. I haven't got the government I think the country deserves, and I doubt I ever will.

Also, I now live in Scotland!

Thanks, Alister - that's a very fair point to make. This is about politicians scoring points off each other at the expense of the people with no effective say in the matter.

Used the automatic gate at Edinburgh airport the other day for the first time. Whilst quicker than Mrs Potsherd who went through the manned gate, it did seem to take an incredibly long time to adjust to my height (short person > taller than average). Didn't especially like having to take my specs off so it could get a reading.

Re: Heartbeat waveforms are *very* odd

I'm clearly missing something here. Biometrics is about using aspects of the person that *don't* change much, or only very slowly. All the aspects of the heart's regulatory mechanism are prone to rapid change uncontrollable by the individual (at least, that was accepted wisdom when I did cardiac anatomy and physiology a couple of decades ago). This just looks like a system designed to fail at the important moments - like fingerprint readers on laptops failing to authenticate just before a presentation because the presenter is nervous and has cold, sweaty fingers.

Re: What about borders?

Yep - remember part, and also have a couple of places where you have altered the key ever so slightly: an O to an 0, or a couple of transposed figures. Even if it is captured, and assuming they don't beat it out of you (but, as has already been said, if they physically have you all that is left is your resistance to "questioning") then there is a level of "something you know" that can't be (easily) guessed.

Re: Pish @ Michael C.

"It may come as a surprise to you but in democracies governments are elected. People contribute to and develop societies to define and shape the laws we live under, the laws that governments govern. Those are the two most prominent differences between terrorist organisations and governments."

And, as has been pointed out all over the place, the German government of the 1930s was elected.

"Your historical references are all examples of where governments have gone wrong, or were never established by the people."

And what are your criteria for a government that has "gone wrong"? From my point of view, we have one - it is using draconian powers that should only be used in the direst of emergencies to stifle free-speech and legitimate investigation by the press. It is removing freedom from the average individual every day, and has been caught actually having a level of information about the everyday activities of its citizens that a government should never have. It has turned (over a number of terms of parliament, but it is still "the government") the police into a para-military organisation above the laws it is fails to enact without prejudice.

If you are old enough, look back to, say, 1990, and consider whether you would have thought that this country could ever have become what we are living in, and that this discussion could ever have been seriously had by anyone other than those at the very extremes of society. I say it couldn't - the government has gone wrong, it has acted over-zealously in the face of a trivial threat, and we, the population are suffering for it. That, by any definition, is a government gone wrong.

So, what was your point again?

Re: Sacked from the Army

"Mandatory down-vote for using the word 'sheeple'."

It's funny how Matt uses that word to describe those who disagree with him, when he is usually supporting the majority case ...

I like a lot of what Matt says, but his use of ad hominem is becoming irritating.

Re: No.... @Steve Knox

"The law is not a moral construct."

As a teacher of Law and Ethics, I disagree with you absolutely. Some very respected thinkers do, too.

Your opinion shows you to be a legal positivist, which I shouldn't be surprised by on a site like this - research shows that techie types are more prone to thinking "If X then Y", and expect the law to do the same. It is therefore good that techie types rarely go into law.

Re: Appeal.................

On the other hand, it could be cheap and easy good publicity for the man with the Nobel Peace Prize ...

Re: A message from Whitehall Man

The trouble is, I'm starting to think that isn't so unlikely.

That is really sad.

Re: Not China Only One Agent Here!

More likely, it's Matt Bryant desperately showing that he isn't "sheeple" who are wrong in our distrust of the government he seems to implicitly trust!

Re: Where was the Guardian's BOFH?

>KZERRT!<

Re: DeMockRacy

There may be a way. If enough people stand as independents at the next election, some will get in. Hopefully, enough people who aren't career politicians, and not in the pockets of vested interests, would get in to make some sort of difference.

Re: Missing the point? @ G Murphy

And that is where the difficulty lies. You and Matt Bryant have the opinion, for whatever reason, justified or not, that there is an external "ill-intentioned" person or persons that could have a significant negative effect on the lives of you and, presumably, significant numbers of others. The government is, therefore, entirely justified, in your opinion, in doing these things.

On the other hand, there are a significant number of people on here, and, presumably elsewhere, who see the "ill-intentioned" as being the government, which is taking action far in excess of anything proportional to any significant risk. It is acting not in the best interests of the populace, but of itself. It is unable to accept that it might have gone too far, that it is looking ridiculous, and has become the body most likely to cause a significant negative effect to all - you and Matt included.

In my opinion, what the government and security forces are doing is utterly horrifying. I know they are nasty fuckers at the best of times, but it looks as if they are acting with overweening arrogance. The deaths of David Kelly and Gareth Williams look more and more like assassinations by those that should have protected them. The police look more like a paramilitary force to be feared by the population. The government, and, by extension, Parliament, looks like a threat to health and well-being of anyone that dares to question it.

What do you see in the actions and justifications of those you are defending that I don't?

Re: Driving a chore?

You aren't the only one, ted. Driving is one of life's pleasures to me. I don't mind driving in traffic (it is still a skill), or on long motorways - there is the knowledge that I am doing perhaps the most difficult thing I have in my skill-set. When I'm competing, it gets better!

I recently rented a car with cruise-control etc. For economy, I set the speed at a reasonable compromise - not dawdling, but not as fast as I would if I had full control of the throttle. Most boring journey (350 miles) I've ever done, and it was really hard to keep concentration.

Re: VLP == Vain Losers Poserphone @ OP AC

Well, I have a Galaxy Note 1 which I have made *even bigger* with an Otterbox case which fits to a lovely belt-holster. If I'm going to be in a situation where that might be difficult (wearing a suit with no belt loops or loops only for a narrow belt), it comes out of the case and then it fits in a shirt or jacket pocket. The only time it becomes a bit difficult to carry is when I'm out running, but I simply wear a money-belt for that. I hope your head* hasn't exploded at the sheer un-coolness of all that - no that's a lie; I sort of hope it has.

Please guys and gals, remember that different people have different requirements. For me, it is to have a phone that fits comfortably in my big hands (especially now it seems I'm getting arthritis in some of my knuckles), that I can comfortably read e-books on, and which has a pen. I have never been [what I regard as] silly enough to text or dial one-handed - a recipe for dropping a phone if ever there was one - and I always carried even chocolate-bar phones in a holster on my belt because it seems the most sensible place to keep a phone. Substance over style should be the keyword here, not what the idiot marketers make you think.

Oh, and the Mega 6.3 - if it had a pen, I'd be seriously considering it.

* and all the other fashion-police commentators on here.